From the comments, the results of the Sex ID Test so far:
| Name | Tendency | Percentile |
|---|---|---|
| me | womanish | 25% |
| JH | womanish | 50% |
| Laura | mannish | 50% |
| Kathy | no tendency | n/a |
| GKB | mannish | 25% |
| zellona | womanish | 50% |
| shaun | mannish | 50% |
| Martin | mannish | 50% |
| JTB | womanish | 50% |
| Amy | womanish | 50% |
| SKB | womanish | 25% |
| B | mannish | 50% |
Because the sample size is currently small, it’s difficult to answer with any certainty Laura’s question, but it is my hope that in the coming days we can get a better sample and say for sure. (Of course, absence of data didn’t prevent us from changing the site slogan to “Eschewing your gender since 2003,” which is IMO the raddest slogan ever, whether or not it’s empirically true.) So, hermits and hangers-on, what are you waiting for? Take the test! (And report back.)
GKB: mannish: 25%
by GKB—Mar 4, 06:42 PM
So noted, and oddly, surprised that I’m unsurprised…
by greg—Mar 4, 07:10 PM
not that any of you know who i am, but i am 50% womanish. then again, for that to make sense, you would need to know who i am.
by zellona—Mar 4, 10:17 PM
Some of the tests I thought were spot on, but some, I questioned. For instance, I scored a 19/20 for “systematizing,” and a 0/20 for empathizing. I don’t think I agree with that.
I’m just glad I wasn’t 50% mannish: that would have been too cliche…
by GKB—Mar 4, 10:18 PM
somebody can’t read the expressions of another person’s eyes…
then again, is she smiling?
by zellona—Mar 4, 10:27 PM
So noted, zellona. Everybody, welcome zellona.
But I must say, for the record (and because anybody paying attention should know who you are), you’ve got to come up with something better than zell (or anything derivative of it). For one, it reminds me of my grandmother (whose name adds an a; her name I like but not in this context). For another, it’s just not interesting enough. Take a name like “Oviedo,” or make up something.
by greg—Mar 4, 10:30 PM
why you wanna hate on the sister of an old angry marine?
by zebulona—Mar 4, 10:33 PM
what so bad about scoring a mannish 50%? don’t make me use my high testosterone levels and well-developed spacial skills to start kicking some ass.
by shaun—Mar 4, 10:46 PM
4: 0/20?! That’s atrocious! I don’t think there’s any way to make it seem like a fluke: for example, you can’t say, “I was really tired.” You have to get at least 7 right to say that. No wonder people like to bash you over the head.
by greg—Mar 5, 07:12 AM
Last night we had a birthday party for my sister… I made a most scrumptilious tres leches cake
the only thing i changed was that the “frosting” was brown sugar, vanilla whipped cream with coconut flakes.
it is extremely important to whip the egg whites into a frenzy, or else the cake won’t rise.
_________________________________
At twenty a man is a peacock, at thirty a lion, at forty a camel, at fifty a serpent, at sixty a dog, at seventy an ape, at eighty a nothing at all.
Baltasar Gracian
by Gracian—Mar 5, 07:25 AM
Just to clarify, when we say ‘I’m 50% something’ that means halfway between neutral and the average, not halfway between neutral and the outer extreme of one gender, right?
I used B’s ruler to measure my ring and pointer fingers this weekend, and they seem to be exactly the same length. I can only assume that would push me even further down the womanish scale, but I didn’t bother to take the test again. I also didn’t bother to tell B that she is in fact engaged to a mental woman, whose only masculine attribute seems to be that (s)he prefers feminine faces to masculine ones. (I’m a lipstick lesbian trapped in a man’s body!) I’m not sure when or how I’ll break the news to her.
by JH—Mar 5, 08:21 AM
0/20.
Maybe I shouldn’t have been watching t.v. while I was doing this. I really don’t think I’m a 19/20 for systematizing.
So I like to build IKEA furniture. Does that mean I can’t tell when my wife is pissed at me?
On second thought, there are often times when I have no idea that she is pissed at me (which makes her even more pissed, which I still miss…)
Maybe I’m just empathetically retarded…
by GKB—Mar 5, 08:56 AM
I read it as halfway between neutral and the extreme—it seems to me very few people would actually make it to 100% either way.
10: how about Baltasar?
by greg—Mar 5, 09:00 AM
(That said, for the allusion alone Gracian is way better than
hellzell, zellona, zebulon, whatever…)by greg—Mar 5, 09:12 AM
50% mannish
but look out, I’m 10 for 10 on facial expressions
thanks for the diversion
by Martin—Mar 5, 09:41 AM
So I find it pretty hard to believe we only have 6 hangers-on. I would’ve supposed at least 10 by this evening, a baker’s dozen total. Come on, people—lurkers too—pick up the pace: We need data here!
by greg—Mar 5, 10:57 PM
50% womanish. I have to say that I thought I’d be much more manly. Apparently not being able to rotate an object mentally—or to be more accurate, not really caring if I rotated the object correctly or not—means I don’t get to be a man. But that’s okay. Sor Juana says I don’t have to even if the gnostic gospel of Thomas predicts I’ll be a man in heaven.
by JTB—Mar 6, 02:53 PM
BTW apparently I empathize like a man and systematize like a woman…so I pretty much suck at both? Not great news for a systematic theologian.
by JTB—Mar 6, 02:58 PM
Are you kidding? It’s perfect for a systematic theologian: they almost always empathize like men and systematize like women.
by greg—Mar 6, 03:06 PM
On second reading, I don’t know what 19 means either, but it sounded good when I wrote it. Carry on.
by greg—Mar 6, 04:14 PM
You’ve got to give me some time…I blog in between feedings, naps, changings, and class prep…
maybe i’ll make my new blog slogan, “systematizing like a woman since 2003”?
by JTB—Mar 7, 07:23 PM
And I use my time much less wisely. Because of that, I never worry about timeliness: blog is a place without time, which moves on or returns at leisure.
by greg—Mar 7, 08:30 PM
50% womanish, with an incrediable ability to confound Martin with my facial expressions.
by Amy—Mar 10, 05:22 PM
Newlywed confoundedness strikes MRAN!
Do not worry, Martin: over time you’ll get slightly better at it, but more importantly, Amy will forgive you more often for your incapacity to read her mind.
At least, that’s how I interpret a similar phenomenon in my marriage…
by greg—Mar 10, 07:08 PM
OTOH, MRAN’s combined score balances to 0, which raises another question which may or may not be interesting: is it more likely that couples tip the scales or even them out? It’s really unsurprising to me that K & I lean womanish—it was pretty much a given that I would be at least as girly as anyone I married, ditto Gracian; but we’re hardly the average… so what say you, other coupled hangers-on? get your SOs to play, too!
by greg—Mar 10, 07:37 PM
Sara and I balance each other out. In this, as well as other tests.
On the DISC inventory, for one, I am off the charts D and I, and very little S or C. Sara, OTOH, is almost completely S and C, with little D or I.
by GKB—Mar 11, 08:44 PM
The pattern holds!
B is 50% mannish.
by JH—Mar 12, 02:02 PM
Even though it’s very likely that the test doesn’t measure anything at all, I find this all very fascinating, anyway.
We still need more data points, though, then perhaps we can submit them to Mr. Statistics Chris to analyze our data for us when he is not too busy (which, given his schedule, is probably never)...
I wonder if he & M could be compelled to take the test, though?
by greg—Mar 12, 02:28 PM
Perhaps it could work like in Peter Pan: if you believe in Chris and Mary and clap your hands really hard and for a really long time, maybe they’ll reappear!
by greg—Mar 12, 02:37 PM
I’d get my SO to take the test, but he’s in rural Virginia with no internet access.
I believe in Chris and Mary. . . I believe in Chris and Mary! Insert virtual handclapping.
by Laura—Mar 12, 04:46 PM
Though from what I’ve heard about your SO, Laura, I suspect the trend of couples zeroing-out will be lost on you, too.
by greg—Mar 14, 07:12 AM